[1] First, the EU countries have much higher World Press Freedom Index than the US. Second, once you start reading how little there is of the alleged "censorship" in the EU, you realize it's a no-brainer aiming to protect people.
Also "EU countries have higher press freedom than the US" is a strawman argument. We're not talking about press freedom. It's also an example of the fallacy of relative privation ("X isn't bad, because Y is worse than X"). It's like saying "It's a hoax that the US executes some prisoners, because Iran executes even more".
Sometimes I set my VPN destination to the UK (my country of origin) to get around these. Then I find that I have other problems. For example, certain Reddit posts are unavailable to me because someone has posted a comment that some algorithm has decided is NSFW (and therefore triggers age verification under the UK Online Safety Act 2023).
The result is that I have to turn my VPN on and off depending on what I'm trying to do.
If you want to make gambling illegal, then make gambling illegal and then enforce that law. You don't need to resort to indirect measures that go beyond the law (e.g. by preventing me from merely viewing the odds on a gambling website).
How would you solve this.
US citizens living in states without legal gambling can often drive across state lines or to the nearest Native American reservation to gamble. There’s no way of preventing this nor does there need to be.
Indian society is unconcerned, if not outright supportive of this law.
Your counterpoint zeroes in on the specific example, but in addressing it avoids the spirit of the issue.
People want certain laws and restrictions. You are arguing that if people choose to circumvent those laws, tough beans.
Heck, you could just have nations destabilize neighbors by this lassiez faire approach.
Even China, who has probably the most sophisticated information controls in the world, can’t prevent leaks through the Great Firewall. They just rely on it being “good enough” to restrain the general public.
Put another way, your country can make all the laws it wants, but it can’t change the laws of another country or force them to change how their network behaves, at least not without a fight. And in a world of billions of people, the global network will always be doing something that you don’t approve of, somewhere!
Remember we started are working from here
> If you want to make gambling illegal, then make gambling illegal and then enforce that law. You don't need to resort to indirect measures that go beyond the law (e.g. by preventing me from merely viewing the odds on a gambling website).
From your argument the only option is to not make anything illegal that is legal in the nation of minimum laws.
Are you arguing that nations - voters - should have no say in what laws they want to live under ?
Do note that I am all for less government control. But our current regulatory and rights landscape is not resolving the questions our voters and infrastructure is throwing up.
Eventually, everything runs on some infrastructure. Control will be forced.
If we want to prevent it, we need to have answers to the issues being thrown up by users.
You can make certain digital behavior illegal for your citizens, but enforcement is always going to be difficult. If you invasively spy on them to try and force them into your model digital behavior, it will cause unrest. If you try to block specific sites at the border, you will take down unrelated sites and breed contempt for the law. By pushing people farther and farther underground, you eventually connect them with organized crime and foreign governments.
In the long run, your insistence that the network be controlled is going to lead to either civil breakdown or totalitarianism. Perhaps that’s the inevitable consequence of connecting humanity as we’ve done. But I suspect that countries who are more digitally permissive will not face the same dilemma.
(Note that people usually accept laws where a victim can be identified. A digital crime with a real victim is still a crime, and standard policing methods can often track down the perpetrator. No need to break the internet for these cases.)
local laws are local and not global. otherwise we could start obeying Iran's or North Korea's laws just to be safe of not breaching any local laws.
Got it
I might have changed my dns in the past
Websites deciding EU users are not valuable enough to comply with GDPR is, as you say, also not censorship. It is again the technical decision of some website owners to provide their content only in conjunction with illegal processing of your data.
I have not had issues accessing torrent indices from the EU. This too is usually handled domestically and has little to do with the EU.
There is legitimately dangerous (current and upcoming) EU legislation (Chat Control, eIDAS, age verification, previously the Data Retention Directive), so I don't think it necessary to weaken your argument by listing non-examples.
- geofenced media
- commercial sites intentionally removing eu access because of gdpr.
That's it. Those are the only cases where I could not access sites from tbe EU. At least the ones I encountered.
And do notice, both of them are not filtered by the EU or anything like this. They are enforced at the publishing website. Would you call this censorship? It kind of feels like a stretch. If not a deliberate contortion of truth.
There's something similar in RealityVoid's comment where it is identified that EU law promotes censorship, but that is discounted because the understanding is it in aid of privacy rather than politically motivated. Although given Europe's rich history of sliding into authoritarianism that does seem like an optimistic take on where the European elite are heading. A part of political censorship is making it hard for people to realise that popular political viewpoints are being censored and providing cover by claiming the censorship is for some good cause would be pretty routine.
Is this because the EU or your country has blocked access, or some news site from the US blocking access from the EU because they don't want to deal with GDPR?
Because you really think this “portal” is going to let you access websites diffusing copyrighted content?
That's by far the most prevalent kind of blocking and I don't think the current admin is against that at all, they just want to to promote Nazi speech (which is barely blocked in the first place).
I wonder what they'll do about pedophile stuff though.
European politicians are calling every day to censor social media. People are arrested regularly for social media posts.
Censorship is absolutely an issue in Europe and it’s only getting worse. I welcome such an attitude as this.
You cannot go around threatening to harm people without repercussions.
Guising it under a scary sounding law doesn’t change the nature of it.
[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Scottow-...
”Margaret Dodd of one offence of improper use of a public communications network, contrary to section 127(2)(c) of the Communications Act 2003. This provides that a person commits an offence if “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another [she] … persistently makes use of a public electronic network”.”
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/23/uk-police-le...
Regarding Graham Linehan who is by far the best example.
Not sure what [2] is about.
[3] doesn't appear relevant either.
Well yes, that’s my point. :)
2. Is a woman being arrested and charged with causing “anxiety” for a series of tweets.
3. Is the same; wrongthink guised as “threats” etc
If you just want to defend the censorship as is your right then just say so instead doing the usual:
“It’s not happening”
“Ok. It’s happening and that’s a good thing”
Rigmarole and wasting my time.
Obviously free (and not merely democratic societies) need strong protections of minorities and broad freedoms, but I don’t see free speech implementations in Europe broadly infringing on that.
Unfortunately, last I tried to look this up, I found that there simply do not exist useful and easy to find stats for "malicious communications" in the UK such that stalkers and people making death threats can be separated from mere political correctness.
And even with actual death threats, there's stuff like this, where I don't myself have a single sustained state of my own mind about how I would respond to such a tweet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11066477/Veteran-ar...
He was offered to undergo "re-education." You might not like this meme. You might find it offensive. But should he be arrested by several officers for it? Of course not. This is just one example of many people being being arrested and imprisoned for offending people. It is against the law to offend people in the UK.
Sorry, my eyes just rolled out if my head.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irishman-arrested-for-...
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irishman-arrested...
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/03/memes-police-matter...
https://www.hrla.org.au/uk_man_arrested_for_social_media_mem...
Is this normally how you evade things which make you uncomfortable? Attacking the source?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irishman-arrested-for-...
Maybe it's not on The Guardian or the BBC but it obviously doesn't fit their bias so you may have to accept other sources.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/arrest_of_mr_darren_b...
This is why the Daily Mail causes rolled eyes (along with Spiked and the rest of the right-wing agitprop).
Those complaints should have been laughed at and ignored.
"A 51-year-old man from Aldershot was arrested on suspicion of sending by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing message or matter."
This is the legal basis for the arrest. Without the retweet, police would not have had authority to turn up to his place of residence - twice - and demand entry. No doubt they preferred Brady voluntarily submit himself for interview at the station, but he refused, which I hope we can all agree is the morally correct position. No one should have police turn up outside their house - TWICE - because of a parody retweet.
Not saying that things are perfect in Europe but the US talking about freedom and freedom of speech sounds like a joke.
The US's "commitment to free speech" is nowadays not very much more noble than Russia's principled stand against economic sanctions.
What I did say is that the US's position is not as a defender of free speech either (and as Russia is not a defender of free trade). They have particular speech they like to promote (the KKK, stormfront) and particular speech they like to suppress (criticism of war crimes, books about being trans). Draw whatever conclusions you like from that.
The online commons and tasks are too complex and absurd, and we have many people who value speech, who would be the ideal people to take on these tasks. Putting their values into action so to speak.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so the moment people volunteer for this, they will themselves see whether the claims of misinformation and disinformation are overblown, and then vote accordingly.
Obviously speech is a super important part of our online lives, and should be treated as such.
Even now on HN we are lucky with who moderates it but this should be more commmon.
And Mandatory service for your own nation. How else will you have a citizenry who can be plugged into their information economy.
In most European countries, you'd have to go pretty far to get in legal trouble for social media posts. It's not impossible, but that's also true in the US. There are and have always been limits to speech. Everywhere. Also in the US (and not just under Trump, although he'd definitely increasing government censorship).
* Threats
* Blackmail
* Libel/slander
These are all restricted by law, because they hurt, silence or coerce people. Hate speech does the exact same thing. It's ridiculous to call hate speech protected free speech, while threats and blackmail are not.
A far worse attack on free speech is banning or restricting criticism of the government. That is the primary reason for free speech protections, and yet that's the very thing that the current US government is attacking on an unprecedented scale. See for example recent attacks on Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colbert. That's something that would be unimaginable in many European countries.
I don't think the placement of the US on the World Press Freedom Index is necessarily informative of whether there's censorship in the EU. I'd expect they both rank higher than North Korea, but that doesn't tell us much either.
* Police in England and Wales recorded 12,183 arrests in 2023 for online speech. This number is growing fast, but the government isn't releasing the data anymore. A few years ago this man retweeted a meme (pretty milquetoast by internet standards) and was arrested and asked if he would undergo re-education: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11066477/Veteran-ar...
* The UK records "non-crime hate incidents," whereby if someone complains about you because they don't like you, and if the officer also doesn't like you, they record your behaviour on your permanent record, even if you haven't committed any crime. This record is accessible and used by many industries such as teaching, firefighters, and police. If you have even one non-crime hate incident on your record, you can be excluded from a job.
* The UK Online Safety Act 2023 requires websites with content which "could" harm children to age verify all users. Porn sites. Social media. Etc. This required people sending in their government ID to be permanently retained by a multitude of private companies. There are already many examples of sensitive data being leaked and hacked. Now that kid are using VPNs to access porn sites, the current ruling government is seeking to ban VPNs ("for children", of course).
* UK law criminalises “threatening,” “abusive,” or “insulting” words. The legal test is (I am not making this up), whether someone took offense. This has led to outrageous examples such as this man who is facing a longer sentence for burning a Quran than the man who stabbed him (for burning said Quran): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o
* In 2023–2024, the government obtained a court injunction preventing publication of details relating to a major data breach involving Afghan relocation applicants (the ARAP scheme). Parts of the reporting were restricted for national security and safety reasons.
* The Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice system allows the government to advise editors not to publish information that could harm national security. They have broad authority here.
* The Official Secrets Act 1989 criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of classified government information. Journalists themselves can potentially be prosecuted. There is no formal public interest defense written into the Act.
* The Contempt of Court Act 1981 restricts what can be published once someone is arrested or charged if publication could prejudice a trial.
* Ofcom regulates broadcast media under impartiality rules. News broadcasters must follow “due impartiality” rules. They can have their licenses revoked if they're not following some rather vague rules.
If I'm honest, I'm very envious of the First Amendment. It's clear that we do not have the same right to free expression in Europe. No doubt there are supporters of this system who prefer a society in which one may not say offensive or unkind things. But I think there are too many examples where suppression of speech inevitably leads to authoritarianism.
What a sad handwaive of the current state of affairs
What problems are you thinking about
This is a more than a bit misleading. The Quran-burner received a £240 fine, his assailant got 20 weeks suspended. Also, though he went for him with a knife, he wasn't successful - nobody was stabbed.
You haven't kept up with the news. The Crown Prosecution Service has lodged an appeal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v7w1yw771o
You are correct on one count: Hamit Coskun was not stabbed. He was "knocked down, spat at, and kicked." I'm not sure that's the gotcha you were hoping it would be.
Yes I know you’ll tell me it’s for my own good. Spare me.
"We ranked ourselves and found we were number one!"
>>Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
>The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.
>Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.
>Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
But nearly all of them are direct threats to people, stalking, repetitive abuse, support for terrorism and admissions of actual criminal activity.
If you wrote these things on a wall outside your house you'd be arrested. If you said them down the pub you'd get the shit kicked out of you in 30 seconds. Do you expect these to be ignored under "free speech"? No because they wouldn't be even in the US.
This increased because people feel safe saying these things on social media because there are other people saying them in their social bubble.
> There are a few cases which are thrown out which were overreach <-- You are here
> Well overreach and sentencing is happening, but it's not common enough to care
> Yeah sentencing to prison is common now, but as long as you stay within the confines of the law you won't be affected
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021...
I believe you are referring to UK examples, which are not representative for Europe or covered under the DSA.
The overall message still applies; harassment and death threats are no less legal and no more legal because they happen online.
whether or not 30 arrests per day for social media posts is exclusive to the UK it is relevant to the OP link
>harassment and death threats
we both know that this is not what's being discussed here